This is fine for notational purposes, I guess (although I personally
would be loath to write it that way). But it won't *feel* like a bar
of 2/10 to anyone, because there's no rhythmic point of reference.
Instead, it will feel like a metric modulation.
so we should go through all the repertoire and change all instances
of works that start out with triplet values as well? holy shit, a
whooooooooooooooooole lot of jazz would have to be rewritten...
saying a musician -- or the audience for that matter -- can't
distinguish a triplet (even if "partial") from the related
non-triplet 8th value at the start of the piece is to seriously doubt
the capacity of your musicians and audience. from the triplet to the
quintuplet, t'is but a small jump.
sorry darcy, but this is really a ridiculous proposition.
in any case... there are articles by F and about his music which
clearly talk about metre being one level of "pressure" on the music,
i don't recall ferneyhough ever using a 6/8 metre to articulate a
swing feel (as a vulgar example). it is much more about relations
of tempo (perceived) than about clear demonstration of metric
relations and "beats". even a look at some of his earlier scores
(in particular) with no background about the techniques or
compositional interests shows that different types of metres
"containing" similar materials or rhythmic patterns have an entirely
different impact on the flow of the music.
even as far back as chopin we have examples of tuplet values which do
not necessarily have a clear-cut, unquestionable relationship to the
metre (22:6/8, for example, or 5-lets in cadences that REALLY do NOT
function like quintuplets in clear relation to the preceding and
subsequent music; i'm thinking esp. of the nocturnes); why is it then
such a problem with F et al?
any further discussion is really impossible, in my opinion, if
everyone who is simply attacking these VERY widespread practices have
no clue about the background and why they exist. i seriously doubt
anyone who is arguing against them has spent more than 5 minutes with
a score of ferneyhough and doubt that any more than perhaps one
person has read more than one article about his music or about
related practices.
sorry to be so harsh, but i fail to see the point in even attempting
to continue this discussion if opponents aren't informed on even a
basic level about the issues. i am not at all arguing that there is
nothing to question in ferneyhough's music (he is in fact one of the
most romantic of today's "big" composers), but there is so much more
to the music than a /10 metre... but you have to want to see it, and
i cannot -- and will not -- force that on anyone. but please don't
let your misunderstandings and uninformed prejudices destroy what
could potentially be an interesting discussion about contemporary
practices.
--
for those interested, don't remember exact titles, but there is an
IRCAM publication (in french) which describes his compositional
approach -- which his compositional techniques ****SERVE**** -- and
there are a number of articles in perspectives of new music, in
particular one issue which i believe had "why complexity?" as the
theme, which explain much of the interest behind such music... and
how the term "new complexity" was never intended as a nomenclature
for music by ferneyhough et al, but has been nonetheless been
appropriated by everyone who wishes to attack such musics as an
obvious provocation of the hallowed practices of classical music.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
